Legal System

Humans have never been considerate or mindful, and history has shown that how poorly they maintain balance. Therefore, laws were created to encourage people towards guidance. Since the law was founded on so simple a divine principle, and since it seemed clear that adhering to that principle was beneficial to all, transgressors were often punished severely. Still, some of the humans who knew very well that these laws were made for their benefit, amended those laws so that they benefited a few on the cost of the masses and hence leniency shown to criminal suspects.

The law in ancient Egypt functioned just as it did in any other civilization. There was a set of agreed-upon rules which had been formulated by men who were considered experts in the field, a judicial system which weighed evidence of infractions of those rules, and police officers who enforced those rules and brought transgressors to justice. Even then, justice was never restored in the country because the rich mostly managed to get away with their acts and the poor had to face heinous punishments.

When compared with other ancient civilizations Egyptian law yielded little evidence of its institutions. It was, however, clearly governed by religious principles: Law was believed to have been handed down to mankind by the gods on the First Occasion (the moment of creation), and the gods were held responsible for establishing and perpetuating the law, which was personified by the goddess Ma’at. Theoretically the godking was the sole legislator with power of life and death over his subjects, but in reality, his freedom in legal matters, as in other areas, was determined by precedent. As chief official of the judiciary the king was a priest of Ma’at, and the vizier, as the king’s delegate, was head of the courts of justice. Officials of the judiciary were also priests of Ma’at. Inscriptions in tombs and on stelae and papyri, which provide the earliest extant legal transactions, can be dated to the Old Kingdom. ¹

Egyptian law, the law that originated with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under King Menes (2925 B.C.) and grew and developed until the Roman occupation of Egypt (30 B.C.). The history of Egyptian law is longer than that of any other civilization. ² Egyptian law was based on the central cultural value of ma’at (harmony) which had been instituted at the beginning of time by the gods. In order to be at peace with oneself, one’s community, and the gods, all one had to do was live a life of consideration, mindfulness, and balance in accordance with ma’at ³ who was the goddess of truth, order, balance, and justice. She is often shown in paintings and carvings standing behind the pharaoh, who is head of the legal system on earth. Judges often make up her retinue of priests. ⁴

The extensive and comprehensive judicial system developed in ancient Egypt as part of the national and provincial forms of government. The people of the Nile remained close-knit in their Nome communities, even at the height of the empire, and they preferred to have their court cases and grievances settled under local jurisdiction. Each nome or province had a capital city, dating to pre-dynastic times. Lesser cities and towns within the nome functioned as part of a whole. In each town or village, however, there was a seru, a group of elders whose purpose was to provide legal opinions and decisions on local events. The court, called the djatjat in the Old Kingdom (2575–2134 B.C.) and the Kenbet thereafter, made legal and binding decisions and meted out the appropriate penalties. The kenbet was a factor on both the nome and high-court levels. This series of local and national courts followed a well-understood tradition of hearings and judgments.

Only during the periods of unrest or chaos, as in the two Intermediate Periods (First, 2134–2040 B.C.; Second, 1640–1550 B.C.), did such a custom prove disastrous. The popularity of the ‘Eloquent Peasant,’ the tale of Khunianpu, was due to the nation’s genuine desire to have courts provide justice. Crimes involving capital punishment or those of treason, however, were not always within the jurisdiction of the local courts, and even the Great kenbet, the supreme body of judgment, could not always render the ultimate decision on such matters. ⁵

Religious texts presented the king as the supreme judge but his actual judicial responsibility was far from clear. It was he who was formally responsible for decrees concerning specific institutions or situations, which were introduced with the words ‘My (or His) Majesty commands,’ but we know from the Duties that it was the vizier who implemented any decision taken by the king. This suggests a formal distinction between the king as legislator and the vizier as executive. The same vizier also appears as the supreme judge. It seems, therefore, clear that the central person in Pharaonic jurisdiction was the vizier rather than the king. In fact, it is very difficult to distinguish between king and vizier, either in administration or jurisdiction; after all, the vizier was the king’s representative. ⁶

The Great kenbets in the capitals were under the supervision of the viziers of Egypt; in several periods there were two such offices, a Vizier for Upper Egypt and another for Lower Egypt. This custom commemorated the unification of the nation in 3000 B.C. Petitions seeking judicial aid or relief could be made to the lower courts, and appeals of all lower court rulings could be made to the Great kenbet by all citizens. Egyptians waited in line each day to give the judges their testimony or their petitions.

The decisions concerning such matters were based on traditional legal practices, although there must have been written codes available for study. Horemhab (1319–1307 B.C.), at the close of the Eighteenth Dynasty, set down a series of edicts concerning the law. He appears to be referring to past customs or documents in his decrees concerning compliances and punishments. Several sorts of distinctions were found in the hearing of cases. Commoners and women faced different problems but the aristocrats were dealt reverentially in the courts. The poor were not safeguarded in their rights. The ‘Eloquent Peasant’ was popular because he dared to admonish the judges again and again to give heed to the demands of the poor and not to be swayed by the mighty, the well connected, or the popular but in reality, he simply exploited them. The admonitions to the viziers of Egypt, as recorded in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550– 1307 B.C.) tomb of Rekhmire, echo the so-called vigilance required by all Egyptian officials which was never done except for a short time frame.

Some of the higher-ranking judges of ancient Egypt were called ‘Attached to Nekhen,’ a title of honor that denoted the fact that their positions and roles were in the finest traditions of Hierakonpolis, the original home of the first unifier of Egypt around 3000 B.C., Narmer. The title alluded to these judges’ long and faithful tradition of service and their role in preserving customs and legal traditions of the past but it was generally awarded to those who used to give decisions in favor of ruling and rich class. Others were called the ‘Magnates of the Southern Ten,’ and these officers of the government were esteemed for their services and for their rank in powerful Upper Egyptian Nomes or capitals. When Egypt acquired an empire in the New Kingdom era (1550–1070 B.C.), various governors were also assigned to foreign territories under Egyptian control, and these held judicial posts as part of their capacity. The viceroy of Nubia, for example, made court decisions and enforced the law in his jurisdiction ⁷ but their kings and ruling class were free from the effects of its enforcement.

Judicial System

What is known about pharaonic courts (during the old kingdom, and since the Middle Kingdom, knbt, ‘corner’ of a building, with reference to the spot where officials often held audiences for lack of a permanent room) varies considerably with period or location. Powers, important lawsuits, such as those involving land or influential people-for instance, the wife of a Ramesses II accused of opening the pharaoh’s storehouses to steal costly supplies were brought directly to the ‘great knbt,’ after a written complaint had been laid before the vizier but they were dismissed after a little consideration to save the powerful persons. Lesser cases of these strong personalities were left to local courts because they showed their sincerity towards justice. The powers of the courts were notarial and concerned litigation and punishment. ⁸

Courts

Each village and town, irrespective of its size, had its own court, called a kenbet. There were no attorneys or counsellors, so people had to speak for themselves. The plaintiff made his case clearly and the defendant answered it with evidence as solid as that presented against him.

The accused was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Witnesses took an oath in the name of the god Amun-Re and the pharaoh, and anyone thought to be lying or concealing information was liable to be beaten. A panel of judges, chosen from the local men, tried the cases. They cross-examined the witnesses and read any documents entered into evidence. If someone was unhappy with the outcome of a case, there was a higher court—the Court of Listeners, presided over by the district governor—to which they could appeal. Moreover, the two Great Courts were under the supervision of the two viziers, but to reach such busy men was almost impossible for the poor men because they used to deal the matters of those who could pay them bribe or gifts to settle their corruptions and cases which was out of range by a common man.

Final Appeal

The most important matters were reported to the king, who then decided the case and the proper justice. Sometimes the judges found it hard to make a final decision, in this case the judgment was made by divine oracles rather than by human officials. For instance, when the two petitions were put on either side of a street near the chosen god’s image, if a bird should have landed on the statue and then dropped to the ground to peck around one of the documents, its author was declared the winner. ⁹

Notarial Powers

Because most Egyptians were illiterate, they put every deed of any importance before their local ‘court,’ and the scribes of the knbt wrote it down before witnesses. Whenever the deed (sale, will, or donation) entailed some change of ownership over land, a bill of transfer, termed imyt-pr (inventory of what is in the house or will), was drawn up and sent to the vizier, who sealed and stored it after approval. Thus, all data about every plot located in his district were gathered at the vizier’s ‘office’ which secured the fulfilment of agreements by both sides and the compliance of third parties.

Among the covenants submitted to courts, sales required elaborate proceedings, because the Egyptians were not acquainted with money before their last kings started minting coins to pay their foreign mercenaries. A compensation expressed by a metallic standard (from the New kingdom on, copper of 92 grams), was fixed, and this price (swnt) was paid by the direct or postponed delivery of various commodities valued at an equivalent total amount.

Like chattels or real estate, office together with tilled fields which were indissolubly and indivisibly (from son to son (or) heir to heir) assigned to their holder’s sustenance, could be the subject of such sales, donations, of wills executed by the imyt-pr (inventory). Moreover, not only days of servant, but also of boat, and probably donkey, were subject to transfer by sale, will or donation. What is now known as a rental was understood as a sale by the Egyptians, who applied the concept of ‘days of working’ to joint ownership to determine the share, or in case of embezzlement, to fix the compensation according to the length of time during which one had been deprived of the use of his property.

Litigation and Punishment

The court had mainly to judge (wpi) whether the person who appeared before it either as a litigant or as a person kept in detention pending trial, was righteous or guilty. Most of the lawsuits arose from disputes over inheritance, or from failure to fulfill written or oral agreements through insolvency or unwillingness. The defaulter usually took an oath before the knbt to pay his debts before an appointed day or be beaten (usually 100 blows) in addition to a fine doubling what was owed in the agreement of deed put forward by the claimant. So the borderline between litigation and punishment was certainly not as clear.

With regard to punishments for criminal offenses, the power of courts was limited. Except in a few minor cases, they had only to pronounce on the guilt of those who appeared before them, and imprison the culprits until the vizier or, in the most serious cases (great crimes worthy of death, such as pillaging tombs), the pharaoh disposed of them because any punishment, from the amputation of limbs to the death penalty, had to be passed by the king himself ¹⁰ because he had the ultimate godlike authorities due to which he sometimes killed his enemies under the pretext of these rules.

Crime and Punishment

Since Egyptian law was based on custom, tradition, and ma’at, an offense against law and order was considered an offense against ma’at. Laws covered crimes, arguments about land, business deals, wills, property transfers, and arrangements made for the eternal care of tombs. Legal arguments could be complex. One such case about land ownership among several generations of a feuding wealthy family went on for decades; there were many trials overseen by a series of viziers.

All judgments were made in the king’s name. Imprisonment was considered expensive and unproductive. Prisons were only used as courthouses, storehouses for legal records, and to hold prisoners who were waiting for their trial. For serious offenses, a criminal would have his nose or ears, or both, cut off. He might also be sentenced to hard labor in the mines of Nubia, or be sent to a faraway frontier fort. Disgrace and banishment were considered worse than death. For lesser crimes, beatings and whippings were common. Occasionally, an entire family was punished for a relative’s crime.

The death penalty was approved by the king and was reserved for only the most horrible crimes ¹¹ including betrayal against the king or his dynasty. The death penalty offered a number of options. Some criminals were left to be devoured alive by crocodiles. As a special favor or indication of high status, some individuals were allowed to commit suicide. Children who killed their parents underwent an ordeal in which pieces of their flesh were cut out with reeds before they were placed on a bed of thorns and burned alive. However, parents who killed their children were not put to death but were instead forced to hold the dead child’s body for three days and nights.

Other punishments included the emasculation of a man who committed rape against a freeborn woman; the amputation of the hands of dishonest officials; and the removal of tongues of those who released military secrets. If a man committed adultery with a woman’s consent, he would receive 1,000 blows, but she might suffer amputation of her nose, or she might be divorced or even burned to death. ¹² The prevailing beliefs were that a punishment had to be extremely harsh in order to prevent a recurrence of the behavior and that almost every criminal could be rehabilitated. ¹³

Most ancient Egyptians never suffered any of these punishments, because they stayed out of trouble and concentrated on fulfilling their duties to family, community, and country or had private relations with the king or his family. In general, they envisioned that as long as they upheld those duties as good citizens, the gods would look kindly on them. In their minds, after all, it was the gods who had first created the concepts of good, evil, and justice and ordained that bad and unjust people should be punished and good people rewarded. A passage in a text from the third millennium B.C. sums up this belief: ‘Justice is done to him who does what is loved,’ it reads, ‘and punishment to him who does what is hated. Thus, life is given to the peaceful, death is given to the criminal.’¹⁴

Although the lawmakers were men, the system safeguarded the financial position of women and children and attempted to protect and promote the family. Property was invested in women. On marriage, a woman retained her own property, and under the terms of the marriage contract the husband sometimes transferred the whole of his property to his wife to hold and pass on to their children. This transfer of property was probably more theoretical than actual, and in most cases the man would have retained the right to administer and use his own property, at least until divorce. Outside the royal family bigamy and polygamy were rare, although some men had serf concubines as well as a wife. ¹⁵ Divorce was possible for both men and women; legally, it was easier for a man to divorce his wife, but if he did so he had to pay her compensation and she retained the property she had brought to the marriage.

The judicial system of ancient Egypt, collapsing during the various periods of unrest or foreign dominance that inflicted damage on the normal governmental structures, appears to have served the Egyptians well over the centuries. ¹⁶ The law was generally unjust and harsh, when compared with divinely revealed systems. Pharaonic law continued to be universally applied in Egypt until the Ptolemies and Romans became rulers, then, they introduced their own systems for the Greek and Roman immigrants, while Egyptian law was reserved for the indigenous population.

• ¹ Rosalie David (2003), Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 143.
• ² Encyclopedia Britannica (Online Version): https://www.britannica.com/topic/Egyptian-law: Retrieved: 13-11-2017
• ³ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): https://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_Law/: Retrieved: 13-11-2017
• ⁴ Norman Bancroft Hunt (2009), Living in Ancient Egypt, Chelsea House Publishers, New York, USA, Pg. 38.
• ⁵ Margaret R. Bunson (2002), Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 211.
• ⁶ Allan B. Lloyd (2010), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, Blackwell Publishing, Sussex, U.K., Vol. 1, Pg. 231.
• ⁷ Margaret R. Bunson (2002), Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 211-212.
• ⁸ Donald B. Redford (2001), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., Vol. 2, Pg. 279.
• ⁹ Norman Bancroft Hunt (2009), Living in Ancient Egypt, Chelsea House Publishers, New York, USA, Pg. 38-39.
• ¹⁰ Donald B. Redford (2001), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., Vol. 2, Pg. 279-281.
• ¹¹ Wendy Christensen (2009), Empire of Ancient Egypt, Chelsea House Publishers, New York, USA, Pg. 119-120.
• ¹² Rosalie David (2003), Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 145.
• ¹³ Patricia D. Netzley (2003), The Greenhaven Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Greenhaven Press, California, USA, Pg. 176.
• ¹⁴ Don Nardo (2015), Life in Ancient Egypt, Reference Point Press, California, USA, Pg. 41-42.
• ¹⁵ Rosalie David (2003), Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 145.
• ¹⁶ Margaret R. Bunson (2002), Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 212.